BREAKING: @GregAbbott_TX says he will remove from office any Democrats that do not show up tomorrow #txlege pic.twitter.com/VKBPx9Xjru
— Brandon Waltens (@bwaltens) August 4, 2025
And he's going to appoint their replacements.
Abbott is going to remove any legislator not in the chamber by 3:00pm to
...
56,262 Views |
585 Replies
9:57p, 8/3/25
And he's going to appoint their replacements.
10:05p, 8/3/25
In reply to TAMU1990
It will be interesting to see if this survives the court challenge. I have a feeling it won't as it doesn't seem the Texas Constitution or specific laws grant the governor that power if what he is citing is an opinion from a friendly AG.
I do think states need to add this power to prevent the minority party from doing this crap.
I do think states need to add this power to prevent the minority party from doing this crap.
10:07p, 8/3/25
In reply to Kansas Kid
He usurped power during COVID, so it's nothing new, although I agree with this instance. Do your job or quit. Don't run like little *****es.
Kansas Kid said:
It will be interesting to see if this survives the court challenge. I have a feeling it won't as it doesn't seem the Texas Constitution or specific laws grant the governor that power if what he is citing is an opinion from a friendly AG.
I do think states need to add this power to prevent the minority party from doing this crap.
He usurped power during COVID, so it's nothing new, although I agree with this instance. Do your job or quit. Don't run like little *****es.
10:10p, 8/3/25
In reply to Waffledynamics
Article III, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution addresses vacancies in the state legislature. The text is as follows:
(a) When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.
(b) The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.
Waffledynamics said:
Can he just do that? That seems like a wildly abusable power.
Article III, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution addresses vacancies in the state legislature. The text is as follows:
(a) When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.
(b) The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.
10:11p, 8/3/25
with the Texas Constitution, a writ of election is typically issued by a high-ranking executive official, such as the governor. This writ serves as the official directive to the relevant electoral officers to organize and conduct an election for a specific purpose, such as filling a vacant legislative seat. The writ often specifies important details, such as the office to be filled, the date of the election, and other procedural information.
10:22p, 8/3/25
In reply to ABATTBQ87
That's just for filling the vacancy. His justification for making the seats vacant is pretty flimsy.
ABATTBQ87 said:Waffledynamics said:
Can he just do that? That seems like a wildly abusable power.
Article III, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution addresses vacancies in the state legislature. The text is as follows:
(a) When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.
(b) The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.
That's just for filling the vacancy. His justification for making the seats vacant is pretty flimsy.
10:24p, 8/3/25
In reply to Waffledynamics
Did you read the tweet?
I'm Gipper
Waffledynamics said:
Can he just do that? That seems like a wildly abusable power.
Did you read the tweet?
I'm Gipper
10:31p, 8/3/25
In reply to Im Gipper
Now I see. The full tweet with the image didn't load at first, just the caption.
10:41p, 8/3/25
In reply to TAMU1990
If our state govt, all of them, was any more of an abusive clown show we would be California ..
10:42p, 8/3/25
Leaving the state to avoid doing your job sounds like an abandonment of the position thus creating a vacancy.
Is there a job in the private sector that this does not apply to? No reason to give state legislators an exemption.
Is there a job in the private sector that this does not apply to? No reason to give state legislators an exemption.
10:42p, 8/3/25
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
10:49p, 8/3/25
In reply to et98
Good thing Abbott has no plans to "fire" legislators then. You may want to read the official notice posted to the tweet.et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
10:50p, 8/3/25
In reply to Waffledynamics
What exactly is abusive about a power that can't be invoked unless someone else is abusing THEIR power (or more precisely, their duty as an elected official)?
Waffledynamics said:
Can he just do that? That seems like a wildly abusable power.
What exactly is abusive about a power that can't be invoked unless someone else is abusing THEIR power (or more precisely, their duty as an elected official)?
11:05p, 8/3/25
In reply to et98
Governor is head of the executive branch.
This is an executive action. If he can call a special session, he should be able to require them to have qurom. Otherwise, why would the legislature not just boycott every session they won't win?
Leaving your post should be dereliction of duty, just like the military. If he can't remove them it should be a felony where they can never hold another state office
et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
Governor is head of the executive branch.
This is an executive action. If he can call a special session, he should be able to require them to have qurom. Otherwise, why would the legislature not just boycott every session they won't win?
Leaving your post should be dereliction of duty, just like the military. If he can't remove them it should be a felony where they can never hold another state office
11:11p, 8/3/25
In reply to Waffledynamics
He can and he'll fire the first shot through a Q-W action.
Waffledynamics said:
Can he just do that? That seems like a wildly abusable power.
He can and he'll fire the first shot through a Q-W action.
11:13p, 8/3/25
I don't always agree with Abbott, but this is how you fight Democrats. You don't let them set the terms of the battlefield. You fight them every opportunity you get, any way you can, and you go after those responsible for funding their actions. Don't let them breathe for one second.
Democrats would not hesitate to do the same were the rolls reversed. It's good to see Republicans start fighting back and not whining about how there's nothing they can do.
Democrats would not hesitate to do the same were the rolls reversed. It's good to see Republicans start fighting back and not whining about how there's nothing they can do.
11:19p, 8/3/25
In reply to et98
Dereliction of duty. **** every last one of them.
et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
Dereliction of duty. **** every last one of them.
11:23p, 8/3/25
In reply to nomad2007
If the legislature is in session and they chose to be somewhere else, they made their choice.
**** 'em with fish heads.
**** 'em with fish heads.
11:30p, 8/3/25
In reply to Ag87H2O
Look at California. 42% of voters are republicans, yet they are only represented by 13%. Hyprocrites as usual.
Ag87H2O said:
I don't always agree with Abbott, but this is how you fight Democrats. You don't let them set the terms of the battlefield. You fight them every opportunity you get, any way you can, and you go after those responsible for funding their actions. Don't let them breathe for one second.
Democrats would not hesitate to do the same were the rolls reversed. It's good to see Republicans start fighting back and not whining about how there's nothing they can do.
Look at California. 42% of voters are republicans, yet they are only represented by 13%. Hyprocrites as usual.
11:36p, 8/3/25
In reply to et98
Those legislators are denying everyone in other districts a voice as well by denying quorum. They didn't get fired. They quit.
et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
Those legislators are denying everyone in other districts a voice as well by denying quorum. They didn't get fired. They quit.
11:45p, 8/3/25
In reply to Teslag
Teslag said:et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
Those legislators are denying everyone in other districts a voice as well by denying quorum. They didn't get fired. They quit.
12:06a, 8/4/25
In reply to BTKAG97
Touche. I committed the very same fault that I hate in others. I had not read the notice. I deserved to be called out!
There are 2 key parts of the notice. One is the Section 13 of the Article III of the state constitution:
The other is the Texas Attorney General Number KP-0382. I included the summary at the end of the opinion below, but the link takes you to the entire opinion if you're interested (which I'd encourage everyone to read).
Upon reading both documents, it appears that district judges are the ones that actually remove legislators from office, not the governor. The OP and the original Twitter poster are as guilty as I was in failing to understand this point, so I must declare the OP & Twitter headlines as clickbate.
Withat that said, I will tip my hat to Abbott for the political theater & gamesmanship of taking credit for what others in completely different branches of the government may or may not do. Kudos to him.
But I still wonder if the vote must wait until these postions are replaced (most likely with the very same people who were booted from office) due to a lack of quorum, or if they can proceed as if 40% of the voting membership doesn't (temporarily) exist.
Pros: If it works, it would ensure nothing like this ever happens again because the majority in office will add all kinds of stuff to the agenda & pass literally everything their little hearts desire.
Cons: The optics are as bad as possible. Like 1984 bad. Like borderline Putin, Stalin, & Hitler bad. Even though none of these are truly equal comparisons, the similarities might be a little too uncanny for many voers & big money donors.
BTKAG97 said:et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
Good thing Abbott has no plans to "fire" legislators then. You may want to read the official notice posted to the tweet.
Touche. I committed the very same fault that I hate in others. I had not read the notice. I deserved to be called out!
There are 2 key parts of the notice. One is the Section 13 of the Article III of the state constitution:
Quote:
Sec. 13. VACANCY IN LEGISLATURE. (a) When vacancies occur in either House, the Governor, or the person exercising the power of the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and should the Governor fail to issue a writ of election to fill any such vacancy within twenty days after it occurs, the returning officer of the district in which such vacancy may have happened, shall be authorized to order an election for that purpose.
(b) The legislature may provide by general law for the filling of a vacancy in the legislature without an election if only one person qualifies and declares a candidacy in an election to fill the vacancy.
The other is the Texas Attorney General Number KP-0382. I included the summary at the end of the opinion below, but the link takes you to the entire opinion if you're interested (which I'd encourage everyone to read).
Quote:
Summary: Texas courts recognize that a vacancy may occur by abandonment of office. Whether a specific legislator abandoned his or her office such that a vacancy occurred will be a fact question for a court and is beyond the scope of an Attorney General opinion. Through a quo warranto action, a district court may determine that a legislator has forfeited his or her office due to abandonment and can remove the legislator from office, thereby creating a vacancy.
Upon reading both documents, it appears that district judges are the ones that actually remove legislators from office, not the governor. The OP and the original Twitter poster are as guilty as I was in failing to understand this point, so I must declare the OP & Twitter headlines as clickbate.
Withat that said, I will tip my hat to Abbott for the political theater & gamesmanship of taking credit for what others in completely different branches of the government may or may not do. Kudos to him.
But I still wonder if the vote must wait until these postions are replaced (most likely with the very same people who were booted from office) due to a lack of quorum, or if they can proceed as if 40% of the voting membership doesn't (temporarily) exist.
Pros: If it works, it would ensure nothing like this ever happens again because the majority in office will add all kinds of stuff to the agenda & pass literally everything their little hearts desire.
Cons: The optics are as bad as possible. Like 1984 bad. Like borderline Putin, Stalin, & Hitler bad. Even though none of these are truly equal comparisons, the similarities might be a little too uncanny for many voers & big money donors.
12:12a, 8/4/25
In reply to BTKAG97
He is no longer an employee.
Actions have consequences, and legislators are no different.
Bingo. I had employee walk off a jobsite last week because he didn't want to do what his supervisor told him to do. Didn't go to supervisor's boss, didn't call anyone. Just left.BTKAG97 said:
Leaving the state to avoid doing your job sounds like an abandonment of the position thus creating a vacancy.
Is there a job in the private sector that this does not apply to? No reason to give state legislators an exemption.
He is no longer an employee.
Actions have consequences, and legislators are no different.
2:44a, 8/4/25
In reply to AJCB
Conundrum - they have to come back to Texas to file suit.
AJCB said:
Democrats are going "judge shopping" over this one.
Conundrum - they have to come back to Texas to file suit.
2:58a, 8/4/25
I'm sorry. I'm struggling to get past the obvious AI-written statement. There's been a sudden surge in the use of em dashes. In my experience, AI will favor em dashes about every paragraph or two.
4:07a, 8/4/25
In reply to et98
Why not read the opinion he's citing instead of clutching your pearls about executive overreach?
The opinion clearly states a district court makes the determination the legislator has vacated office. That's 0 power for the governor and clear checks/balances.
et98 said:
He is not their boss. He did not hire them, and he should not be able to fire them. A governor firing a congressman is the opposite of representative government.
I disagree with elected officials being little *****es and fleeing to other states like a bunch of cowards, and I would never vote for for someone who has ever done something like this. But if their constituents support their behavior, there is nothing I nor the governor should be able to do about it.
We are a republic, not a dictatorship.
Why not read the opinion he's citing instead of clutching your pearls about executive overreach?
The opinion clearly states a district court makes the determination the legislator has vacated office. That's 0 power for the governor and clear checks/balances.
5:40a, 8/4/25
In reply to TA-OP
This is called "projection"
TA-OP said:
I'm sorry. I'm struggling to get past the obvious AI-written statement. There's been a sudden surge in the use of em dashes. In my experience, AI will favor em dashes about every paragraph or two.
This is called "projection"
5:48a, 8/4/25
In reply to TAMU1990
Why is it the dems are the only ones who do this running away thing? This is I think 3 times in memory they've done this.
When your ideas are so unpopular that you literally go against the will of the people and run away from your job. Democrats are ****ing pathetic.
When your ideas are so unpopular that you literally go against the will of the people and run away from your job. Democrats are ****ing pathetic.
6:12a, 8/4/25
In reply to ts5641
It only makes sense for the minority party to use this tactic. If you have the majority, you can kill legislation by voting it down.
Republicans have done it Oregon as recently as 2023 and in Michigan last December.
All states should do what Oregon voters passed which called for people to be ineligible to run for reelection if they miss more than a certain number of days that is unexcused.
ts5641 said:
Why is it the dems are the only ones who do this running away thing? This is I think 3 times in memory they've done this.
When your ideas are so unpopular that you literally go against the will of the people and run away from your job. Democrats are ****ing pathetic.
It only makes sense for the minority party to use this tactic. If you have the majority, you can kill legislation by voting it down.
Republicans have done it Oregon as recently as 2023 and in Michigan last December.
All states should do what Oregon voters passed which called for people to be ineligible to run for reelection if they miss more than a certain number of days that is unexcused.
6:17a, 8/4/25
In reply to Kansas Kid
Yea once again this is not a only one party does it. Republicans did it in Oregon. This is such political theater. Politics are messy and slimy. Like greasing a turd.
Kansas Kid said:ts5641 said:
Why is it the dems are the only ones who do this running away thing? This is I think 3 times in memory they've done this.
When your ideas are so unpopular that you literally go against the will of the people and run away from your job. Democrats are ****ing pathetic.
It only makes sense for the minority party to use this tactic. If you have the majority, you can kill legislation by voting it down.
Republicans have done it Oregon as recently as 2023 and in Michigan last December.
All states should do what Oregon voters passed which called for people to be ineligible to run for reelection if they miss more than a certain number of days that is unexcused.
Yea once again this is not a only one party does it. Republicans did it in Oregon. This is such political theater. Politics are messy and slimy. Like greasing a turd.